1) Was justice done? To Mr. Wright? To Minnie Foster Wright? To the law?
John: In Trifles, the theme of justice is one that is explored in great detail in regards to not only the death of John Wright, but the obstruction of justice committed by Mrs. Peters and Mrs. Hale. However, in the play, justice was achieved. John Wright, despite his reputation throughout town, was clearly a horror to live with as there were alleged allusions to domestic abuse, potentially physical abuse toward his wife. The murder of John Wright was only in response to the murder of Minne Foster. Mrs. Hale makes it very clear Minnie Foster and Minnie Wright were virtually two very different people, the former a happy, cheerful, and beautiful young woman, the latter a much colder, isolated, and lonely wife. The murder of John Wright was simply a reaction to the murder of Minnie Foster, therefore, an act of achieving justice for a crime already committed. In addition, the withholding of evidence as done by the two women is simply in reaction to unjust treatment that Minne Wright, as a woman, would face if she were brought to trial. In the trial, Minnie would be tried in front of a jury of men rather than a jury of both men and women as women were not permitted to serve on juries in 1916. The fact that she would be tried in front of people viewed as her superiors rather than a jury of her peers is an injustice that is mitigated through the actions of the women. While some may argue that there is both a legal duty and a moral duty to justice, I would prompt them to remember the words of one Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. who once said: "I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law." In this case, the legal system of 1916 is clearly flawed in its exclusivity of women in popular practice, so therefore, the women and Mrs. Wright were not only serving justice by withholding the motive from the men, but were also standing up for their inclusion and role as women in the patriarchal society of rule America in the early part of the 20th century.
Sam: As John examined, it can be considered that Minnie has justice due to her dealing with John Wright. From a point of view that is more or less human, one could understand how Minnie Foster's actions were justified. The man she wed demeaned her both emotionally and psychologically. Yet, what can be said of the justice for John Wright. Please fro not confuse my discussion of the question for having no heart or true care for Minnie. Her situation is one that should be mourned. Yet, I want to be a lawyer and lawyers must look at both sides of the equation. From a viewpoint solely based on the legality of the situation we must examine what transpired. Though Minnie Foster did what she did what she felt she had to do to escape the abuse, laws were still broken. It could be argued that Minnie committed the alleged murder out of self defense, but a jury would not respond well to this because of how she killed her husband. It can be construed as a cold blooded murder of a man while he slept quietly in his home. Minnie's defense seems weak in the eyes the law. Her conviction would pronounce justice done for John Wright, and it can be argued that Minnie achieved her justice when she choked the last breath out of Mr. Wright. With my love of the law, I cannot help but ask for Minnie Foster's conviction though I understand her reasoning. In events like this I am reminded of a old Latin law axiom: Dura Lex, Sed Lex. The law is harsh, but it is the law. The laws of society have the ultimate duty to preserve peace, and to quote the constitution, form a more perfect Union.
Jasmin: As mentioned already, there are two perspectives you can address when answering this question. I am a woman who has sympathy for Mrs.Wright, however, I believe there were other ways she could have set herself free. I'm not familiar with life in this time period and I'm certain the resources we have now, Mrs.Wright was not able to access. She lived in an isolated area which can create loneliness and she had no one to direct her thoughts to a plan more rational then killing her husband. My sympathy for her and my morals creates an inner conflict. Although I understand why Mrs.Wright felt justified in her actions, the action itself was not justifiable. I don't want Mrs.Wright to go to prison because it would counteract her plan completely. Why kill your husband to escape confinement then, because you wanted to escape, they confine you. I also don't condone Mr.Wright's behavior, however premeditating a murder is something I will never believe is justifiable.
Zach: Much like what my classes mates have said above there are two different sides to the question was justice done. On one side is Minnie carrying out what she thinks is morally correct to her. The other is the lawfulness of Minnie's actions. It is said that she could have been abused by Mr. Wright. If this is the case then in response to Mr. Wright abusing her, Minnie most likely thought that by killing him she could get away from the all the abuse she's experienced over the years. In this time period it was very frowned upon to get a divorce and she most likely did not have anywhere else to go since she is from this small town. She thought that there was only one option and that was to become a widow. In this time period is better to be a widow than a woman who got a divorce. If Mr. Wright did in fact abuse Minnie then from a moral stand point justice had been served upon Mr. Wright. Although when looking at it from a legal stand point, she did commit murder. Even with the reason of domestic violence causing her to hang Mr. Wright, it would just make her case in court even worse. Domestic violence at this time was seen as a correct punishment for any woman that did not act exactly how the husband felt that she needed to act like. In a courtroom with a male judge and a complete male jury, its pretty safe to say that it is not a fair trial in todays standards. Even though it may be an unfair trial, Minnie did kill her husband and this cannot be overlooked. She may have a perfect reason for killing him, and it would make complete and total sense to all of us in the present, but that’s not how the law worked back then. Minnie will receive the correct punishment for murder in that time period. Justice will be carried out whether we agree with it or not.
2) Who is fit to sit in judgment of Mrs. Wright?
John: Mrs. Wright is just as deserving as anyone else to sit in front of a jury of her peers. The sixth amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall be committed..." It is important to note, that none of the characters involved in the play, including the two women, should be allowed to sit on the jury as they clearly are not impartial third party observers to the crime. Mrs. Wright should be protected just as much as anyone by the sixth amendment and should be allowed to sit in front of an impartial jury. An impartial jury would not be a jury consisting solely of men. During the early half of the 20th century, men were not impartial to the behaviors of women, specifically a woman who has just killed her husband. For the jury to be completely impartial, women must be present in order to complete the freedoms as outlined in the sixth amendment. However, due to the fact that women were not granted the right to serve on a jury, there would be no jury that would be impartial enough to sit in judgment of Mrs. Wright in 1916 Iowa.
Sam: It is my belief that any true and impartial judge should be able to sit in judgement of Minnie Foster Wright. A lover of law should be able to examine the situation and accurately prescribe appropriate measures. Though I believe John has a point as well. At the time of her trial, men would have been he sole persons to sit in judgement of Minnie. I believe this creates bias, and as John cites, the Constitution assures Americans the right to an impartial jury. In this particular case and trial a jury made up with men and women is necessary for an unbiased conviction or dismissal. As Trifles points out, women can see deeper into the reasoning of another woman because they share a common story. The men miss the motive, and they are consumed with their one interpretation of what transpired that night at the Wright house. A jury and judge of all men would not be able to give the case an impartial look. Ultimately, I must agree with John that Minnie foster would not have an impartial trial and suffer the breaking of her rights guaranteed in the Constitution.
Jasmin: I feel as if no one can truly judge Mrs.Wright. You either have a position that relates to her pain and sorrow which creates bias, or you have a position that morally despises taking another's life. Women are not allowed the same roles as men when this play was written so the bias created by women is out the question and the men will continue to root for men, not even considering the womens emotions. In reality, there is no middle.
Zach: I agree with Jasmine when she says that there is no unbiased party to judge Mrs. Wright. For 1918 Iowa, men are in complete control. So if any woman is taken to court then automatically the court is unbiased. These were the things that women at this time had to realize and deal with. No matter how much the other women in Trifles hide the evidence, it wont really matter in the court. If the men in the jury and especially the judge see Minnie even a slight bit guilty then they will convict her. No one in this time period is really fit to judge Minnie.
3) What is the meaning of the play's title and the title of the short story "A Jury of Her Peers?" What questions does each raise?
John: The title of the play Trifles is a critical clue in understanding the meaning and plot of the work. The play pulls heavily on the differing views of both men and women in regards to the murder of Mr. Wright by his wife, Mrs. Wright. All of the characters in the play are searching for the motive which will ultimately convict Minne Wright of murder. However, while the men are off scrounging the house for some sign of a fit of anger or passion that would have caused the violent outburst, the women ultimately find the answer in the little pieces of evidence overlooked and mocked by the men as insignificant, or as the County Attorney says: "Well, women are used to worrying over trifles." By titling the play Trifles, Susan Glaspell puts emphasis on the fact that the answers are in the trifles, the trifles noticed by the women in the sewing equipment and the trifles that are simply overlooked by the men. The title "A Jury of Her Peers," pays homage to the fact that the women of the story, Mrs. Peters and Mrs. Hale, recognize that Mrs. Wright would be denied a jury of her peers in court. Upon discovering the motive and condemning evidence that would ultimately convict Mrs. Wright of murder, the women take it upon themselves to act as an impromptu jury for Mrs. Wright, deciding that the motive and evidence found, is enough to let Minnie Foster walk free for her crimes, essentially making Mrs. Peters and Mrs. Hale a jury of her peers. Both titles raise the question outlined in the first question, are the women justified in withholding the condemning "trifles" and are they fit to be a jury of her peers? And is justice served by their actions? In regards to the questions raised by the titles, I have to stand by my original answer: yes, the women are justified in their actions and justice is served.
Sam: The use of trifles within Trifles is a key component of Glaspell's one act play. The connotation of trifles, mixed with he allusion of that women carry them, showcases the idea that women concern themselves with less important things. The men in Trifles are first painted as men in the search of justice for a murdered man, yet as the play progresses it is revealed that the women are the true investigators. The "petty" becomes the important. The play speaks to the fact that evidence can hide in every nook, cranny or sew basket. The County Attorney's quote, which John so smartly used, creates a sense that the men will never be able to find the true motive and bestow justice. They are unable to comprehend the notion of there is a bigger picture with Minnie Foster Wright. She did not just simply kill a man, but decides to kill man after years of emotional and psychological abuse. The men cannot be trifled with the idea that Minnie Foster could have ever commented the act out of her own interests that are seemingly justified. Thus, will the men every be able to comprehend the entire story and motive? Furthermore, the use of "Jury of Her Peers" as the title of her short story makes fun of the fact that Minnie Foster will not have a jury of her peers. As discussed earlier, the jury will be partial and it will ultimately lead to conviction without a thorough examination of what had transpired. The historical context of the two pieces is extremely important for the understanding of the plots and themes. They both poke fun at common held ideas, and they show how they do to accurately represent the situation. Can Minnie Foster be given an impartial jury? Like John, I believe the answer is no.
Jasmin: The name of the play is significant because it serves as irony. Men, who dominate the social class, are trying to figure out why a woman killed her husband. They think highly of themselves and believe that women are so clueless that the answer will be in plain sight. They comment on Mrs.Wright's trifles and laugh at them. When ironically, the clue they are looking for is in the trifles. Something that seemed so insignificant to the men, hold so much meaning and the men are too high on their horse to look at the details. They are small minded and make assumptions of her character when in reality, Mrs.Wright outsmarted them. The title "The Jury of her Peers", relates to trifles because Mrs.Wright won't be able to have a fair representation of her peers to "judge" her in court. Women can't speak up for themselves let alone another woman. This is why Mrs.Hale and Mrs.Peter's actions are so intriguing because they are essentially standing up for Mrs.Wright but in a subtle way that won't get them in trouble.
Zach: I completely agree with what John, Sam, and Jasmine said. The definition of trifle is a thing of little value or importance. So as the men look around for clues or evidence, all they find out is that they have a dead body and no real motive for Minnie wanting to kill her husband. The evidence was in a place of little value or importance to them. All saw from the quilts was an activity to keep women busy. If they took the time to think of the situation from Minnie's perspective then they could have easily figured out this case. By Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peter hiding the evidence from the Court Attorney and the Sheriff, they took the responsibility of being Minnie's own jury. This is why "A Jury of Her Peers" is a perfect title for the successor of "Trifles." It points out that if it wasn’t for them then Minnie would not have a jury of her peers. Instead she would have a jury of biased men that only saw her as a murder of a fellow man. Both titles raise the question of what does Minnie Foster Wright's future entail? Will she be convicted with no real evidence in the court or will her peers find a way to help her?
1) Was justice done? To Mr. Wright? To Minnie Foster Wright? To the law?
John: In Trifles, the theme of justice is one that is explored in great detail in regards to not only the death of John Wright, but the obstruction of justice committed by Mrs. Peters and Mrs. Hale. However, in the play, justice was achieved. John Wright, despite his reputation throughout town, was clearly a horror to live with as there were alleged allusions to domestic abuse, potentially physical abuse toward his wife. The murder of John Wright was only in response to the murder of Minne Foster. Mrs. Hale makes it very clear Minnie Foster and Minnie Wright were virtually two very different people, the former a happy, cheerful, and beautiful young woman, the latter a much colder, isolated, and lonely wife. The murder of John Wright was simply a reaction to the murder of Minnie Foster, therefore, an act of achieving justice for a crime already committed. In addition, the withholding of evidence as done by the two women is simply in reaction to unjust treatment that Minne Wright, as a woman, would face if she were brought to trial. In the trial, Minnie would be tried in front of a jury of men rather than a jury of both men and women as women were not permitted to serve on juries in 1916. The fact that she would be tried in front of people viewed as her superiors rather than a jury of her peers is an injustice that is mitigated through the actions of the women. While some may argue that there is both a legal duty and a moral duty to justice, I would prompt them to remember the words of one Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. who once said: "I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law." In this case, the legal system of 1916 is clearly flawed in its exclusivity of women in popular practice, so therefore, the women and Mrs. Wright were not only serving justice by withholding the motive from the men, but were also standing up for their inclusion and role as women in the patriarchal society of rule America in the early part of the 20th century.
Sam: As John examined, it can be considered that Minnie has justice due to her dealing with John Wright. From a point of view that is more or less human, one could understand how Minnie Foster's actions were justified. The man she wed demeaned her both emotionally and psychologically. Yet, what can be said of the justice for John Wright. Please fro not confuse my discussion of the question for having no heart or true care for Minnie. Her situation is one that should be mourned. Yet, I want to be a lawyer and lawyers must look at both sides of the equation. From a viewpoint solely based on the legality of the situation we must examine what transpired. Though Minnie Foster did what she did what she felt she had to do to escape the abuse, laws were still broken. It could be argued that Minnie committed the alleged murder out of self defense, but a jury would not respond well to this because of how she killed her husband. It can be construed as a cold blooded murder of a man while he slept quietly in his home. Minnie's defense seems weak in the eyes the law. Her conviction would pronounce justice done for John Wright, and it can be argued that Minnie achieved her justice when she choked the last breath out of Mr. Wright. With my love of the law, I cannot help but ask for Minnie Foster's conviction though I understand her reasoning. In events like this I am reminded of a old Latin law axiom: Dura Lex, Sed Lex. The law is harsh, but it is the law. The laws of society have the ultimate duty to preserve peace, and to quote the constitution, form a more perfect Union.
Jasmin: As mentioned already, there are two perspectives you can address when answering this question. I am a woman who has sympathy for Mrs.Wright, however, I believe there were other ways she could have set herself free. I'm not familiar with life in this time period and I'm certain the resources we have now, Mrs.Wright was not able to access. She lived in an isolated area which can create loneliness and she had no one to direct her thoughts to a plan more rational then killing her husband. My sympathy for her and my morals creates an inner conflict. Although I understand why Mrs.Wright felt justified in her actions, the action itself was not justifiable. I don't want Mrs.Wright to go to prison because it would counteract her plan completely. Why kill your husband to escape confinement then, because you wanted to escape, they confine you. I also don't condone Mr.Wright's behavior, however premeditating a murder is something I will never believe is justifiable.
Zach: Much like what my classes mates have said above there are two different sides to the question was justice done. On one side is Minnie carrying out what she thinks is morally correct to her. The other is the lawfulness of Minnie's actions. It is said that she could have been abused by Mr. Wright. If this is the case then in response to Mr. Wright abusing her, Minnie most likely thought that by killing him she could get away from the all the abuse she's experienced over the years. In this time period it was very frowned upon to get a divorce and she most likely did not have anywhere else to go since she is from this small town. She thought that there was only one option and that was to become a widow. In this time period is better to be a widow than a woman who got a divorce. If Mr. Wright did in fact abuse Minnie then from a moral stand point justice had been served upon Mr. Wright. Although when looking at it from a legal stand point, she did commit murder. Even with the reason of domestic violence causing her to hang Mr. Wright, it would just make her case in court even worse. Domestic violence at this time was seen as a correct punishment for any woman that did not act exactly how the husband felt that she needed to act like. In a courtroom with a male judge and a complete male jury, its pretty safe to say that it is not a fair trial in todays standards. Even though it may be an unfair trial, Minnie did kill her husband and this cannot be overlooked. She may have a perfect reason for killing him, and it would make complete and total sense to all of us in the present, but that’s not how the law worked back then. Minnie will receive the correct punishment for murder in that time period. Justice will be carried out whether we agree with it or not.
2) Who is fit to sit in judgment of Mrs. Wright?
John: Mrs. Wright is just as deserving as anyone else to sit in front of a jury of her peers. The sixth amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall be committed..." It is important to note, that none of the characters involved in the play, including the two women, should be allowed to sit on the jury as they clearly are not impartial third party observers to the crime. Mrs. Wright should be protected just as much as anyone by the sixth amendment and should be allowed to sit in front of an impartial jury. An impartial jury would not be a jury consisting solely of men. During the early half of the 20th century, men were not impartial to the behaviors of women, specifically a woman who has just killed her husband. For the jury to be completely impartial, women must be present in order to complete the freedoms as outlined in the sixth amendment. However, due to the fact that women were not granted the right to serve on a jury, there would be no jury that would be impartial enough to sit in judgment of Mrs. Wright in 1916 Iowa.
Sam: It is my belief that any true and impartial judge should be able to sit in judgement of Minnie Foster Wright. A lover of law should be able to examine the situation and accurately prescribe appropriate measures. Though I believe John has a point as well. At the time of her trial, men would have been he sole persons to sit in judgement of Minnie. I believe this creates bias, and as John cites, the Constitution assures Americans the right to an impartial jury. In this particular case and trial a jury made up with men and women is necessary for an unbiased conviction or dismissal. As Trifles points out, women can see deeper into the reasoning of another woman because they share a common story. The men miss the motive, and they are consumed with their one interpretation of what transpired that night at the Wright house. A jury and judge of all men would not be able to give the case an impartial look. Ultimately, I must agree with John that Minnie foster would not have an impartial trial and suffer the breaking of her rights guaranteed in the Constitution.
Jasmin: I feel as if no one can truly judge Mrs.Wright. You either have a position that relates to her pain and sorrow which creates bias, or you have a position that morally despises taking another's life. Women are not allowed the same roles as men when this play was written so the bias created by women is out the question and the men will continue to root for men, not even considering the womens emotions. In reality, there is no middle.
Zach: I agree with Jasmine when she says that there is no unbiased party to judge Mrs. Wright. For 1918 Iowa, men are in complete control. So if any woman is taken to court then automatically the court is unbiased. These were the things that women at this time had to realize and deal with. No matter how much the other women in Trifles hide the evidence, it wont really matter in the court. If the men in the jury and especially the judge see Minnie even a slight bit guilty then they will convict her. No one in this time period is really fit to judge Minnie.
3) What is the meaning of the play's title and the title of the short story "A Jury of Her Peers?" What questions does each raise?
John: The title of the play Trifles is a critical clue in understanding the meaning and plot of the work. The play pulls heavily on the differing views of both men and women in regards to the murder of Mr. Wright by his wife, Mrs. Wright. All of the characters in the play are searching for the motive which will ultimately convict Minne Wright of murder. However, while the men are off scrounging the house for some sign of a fit of anger or passion that would have caused the violent outburst, the women ultimately find the answer in the little pieces of evidence overlooked and mocked by the men as insignificant, or as the County Attorney says: "Well, women are used to worrying over trifles." By titling the play Trifles, Susan Glaspell puts emphasis on the fact that the answers are in the trifles, the trifles noticed by the women in the sewing equipment and the trifles that are simply overlooked by the men. The title "A Jury of Her Peers," pays homage to the fact that the women of the story, Mrs. Peters and Mrs. Hale, recognize that Mrs. Wright would be denied a jury of her peers in court. Upon discovering the motive and condemning evidence that would ultimately convict Mrs. Wright of murder, the women take it upon themselves to act as an impromptu jury for Mrs. Wright, deciding that the motive and evidence found, is enough to let Minnie Foster walk free for her crimes, essentially making Mrs. Peters and Mrs. Hale a jury of her peers. Both titles raise the question outlined in the first question, are the women justified in withholding the condemning "trifles" and are they fit to be a jury of her peers? And is justice served by their actions? In regards to the questions raised by the titles, I have to stand by my original answer: yes, the women are justified in their actions and justice is served.
Sam: The use of trifles within Trifles is a key component of Glaspell's one act play. The connotation of trifles, mixed with he allusion of that women carry them, showcases the idea that women concern themselves with less important things. The men in Trifles are first painted as men in the search of justice for a murdered man, yet as the play progresses it is revealed that the women are the true investigators. The "petty" becomes the important. The play speaks to the fact that evidence can hide in every nook, cranny or sew basket. The County Attorney's quote, which John so smartly used, creates a sense that the men will never be able to find the true motive and bestow justice. They are unable to comprehend the notion of there is a bigger picture with Minnie Foster Wright. She did not just simply kill a man, but decides to kill man after years of emotional and psychological abuse. The men cannot be trifled with the idea that Minnie Foster could have ever commented the act out of her own interests that are seemingly justified. Thus, will the men every be able to comprehend the entire story and motive? Furthermore, the use of "Jury of Her Peers" as the title of her short story makes fun of the fact that Minnie Foster will not have a jury of her peers. As discussed earlier, the jury will be partial and it will ultimately lead to conviction without a thorough examination of what had transpired. The historical context of the two pieces is extremely important for the understanding of the plots and themes. They both poke fun at common held ideas, and they show how they do to accurately represent the situation. Can Minnie Foster be given an impartial jury? Like John, I believe the answer is no.
Jasmin: The name of the play is significant because it serves as irony. Men, who dominate the social class, are trying to figure out why a woman killed her husband. They think highly of themselves and believe that women are so clueless that the answer will be in plain sight. They comment on Mrs.Wright's trifles and laugh at them. When ironically, the clue they are looking for is in the trifles. Something that seemed so insignificant to the men, hold so much meaning and the men are too high on their horse to look at the details. They are small minded and make assumptions of her character when in reality, Mrs.Wright outsmarted them. The title "The Jury of her Peers", relates to trifles because Mrs.Wright won't be able to have a fair representation of her peers to "judge" her in court. Women can't speak up for themselves let alone another woman. This is why Mrs.Hale and Mrs.Peter's actions are so intriguing because they are essentially standing up for Mrs.Wright but in a subtle way that won't get them in trouble.
Zach: I completely agree with what John, Sam, and Jasmine said. The definition of trifle is a thing of little value or importance. So as the men look around for clues or evidence, all they find out is that they have a dead body and no real motive for Minnie wanting to kill her husband. The evidence was in a place of little value or importance to them. All saw from the quilts was an activity to keep women busy. If they took the time to think of the situation from Minnie's perspective then they could have easily figured out this case. By Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peter hiding the evidence from the Court Attorney and the Sheriff, they took the responsibility of being Minnie's own jury. This is why "A Jury of Her Peers" is a perfect title for the successor of "Trifles." It points out that if it wasn’t for them then Minnie would not have a jury of her peers. Instead she would have a jury of biased men that only saw her as a murder of a fellow man. Both titles raise the question of what does Minnie Foster Wright's future entail? Will she be convicted with no real evidence in the court or will her peers find a way to help her?